digitalstsfandomcom-20200214-history
Introduction
Draft introduction to the digitalSTS handbook Please insert comments in square brackets in text [], or use square brackets [] to outline changes. Please include your name in the brackets so we know who helped us out! Introduction The contributions in this volume are the outcome of a five-year community building project under the title digitalSTS, aiming to theorize the next generation of STS encounters with digital artifacts, environments, and interactions. This means bringing analyses of digitally-mediated interactions and the study of online ecosystems firmly into the fold of STS, as well as acknowledging and analyzing the digital as we encounter it in our "traditional" sites of inquiry. Further, digital scholarship is presenting challenges and opportunities to classic methods that are already inspiring debate in constitutive STS fields such as anthropology and history. As pundits claim a “revolutionary” role for digital economies, cultures, and products, some even claiming a new industrial revolution, it is time now more than ever for STS scholars to enter the conversation. The contributors here are only a small selection of all those who, across multiple panels, workshops, online submission and reviews, helped shape an emerging understanding of digital studies rooted in the fields that constitute Science and Technology Studies (STS). A bootstrapped dunbar-hester: I'm concerned about this term! can we cut it or say "improvised"? or something?, Steph Steinhardt sbs: echoing CD-H here, "bootstrapped" may indicate something messier and less solid than we'd like if we want this volume to be about building foundation for further work in the future, experimental, participant-driven and inventive structure of community development and collaborative review informed the chapters in this volume. We recount these activities below, by way of conveying the sense of process that led to this volume in section I; the roots of the conceptual synthesis that we offer in section II; the structure of the contributions III; and our sense of the past, present and future of STS conveyed in section IV. ' ' I. The project and the process''' Most edited volumes present selected papers and authors placed carefully into conversation with each other to elucidate novel findings for a subfield. This one, however, had a different premise in mind: that of widening the community and the conversation. Indeed the volume-as-outcome of digitalSTS meetings frequently paled in comparison to the importance of community-building and fostering ongoing dialog about the promises and pitfalls of digital studies for the field. For us, this was not just a question of inviting pluralist voices, but a question of defining and shaping the future of the field. It began in the fall of 2011, when eighty people gathered in a conference room at the Society for Social Studies of Science (“4S”) meeting in Cleveland in a double discussion panel called "STS 2.0: Taking the Canon Digital." We organized the panel in response to a sense that examinations of information technology, systems, digitallysbs:-based media and related topics had not yet received their proper due within STS; even more strongly stated, many of these topics had been marginalized even as other disciplines had begun to empirically and reflexively examine them. Eight panelists, ranging from junior to senior scholars drawn from anthropology, history, communicationno "s" in the field name, sociology, STS and other interdisciplinary sites presented brief provocations to a packed room, and then opened the floor for two hours of discussion. The result was a wide-ranging, engaged and community-driven conversation about the challenges that digital tools, practices and platforms posed for theory and for practice, of the career trajectories for scholars identifying with the field, and of communicating our findings to the broader STS community and beyond. As co-organizers of that initial panel, we were struck by the audience response: the topic had clearly touched a nerve. The remarkable energy and vivacity in the room prompted us to turn a one-time event into the platform for a broader community discussion and to open avenues for addressing “the digital” within STS and to serve as a springboard to push the conversation forward. Certainly one sentiment in the room was that many STS scholars were already addressing the digital’s practices, histories and technologies in their scholarship, but that they were placing their best work in sites outside of STS, such as communication, design, information studies or human-computer interaction. Another view, put forward passionately by panelist Gabriella Coleman, exhorted the assembled STS scholars in the audience not to cede public discourse on digital topics to media pundits, allowing the revolutionary rhetoric to dominate the subject change to "where a revolutionary rhetoric would dominate the subject" - reads slightly ambiguously as is (is it the STS scholars who are saying it is revolutionary or the pundits?). One conclusion we drew from the workshop was the need to develop scholarly venues for contemporary discourse on the digital, drawing on new theory, topics, and methods within the core recognized venues of STS. Over the following five years we convened four workshops, assembled an online platform, hosted events at 4S meetings and elsewhere, and set about building a community for scholarship on digital topics in STS. These workshops and meetings were repeatedly sponsored by the National Science Foundation’s Research Consortium for Sociotechnical Systems (www.sociotech.net) and from the NSF’s Science and Technology Studies division, with additional sponsorship from the Sloan Foundation and from Microsoft Research. Would benefit from one sentence here that describes the other kinds of events/meetings before digging into the maker event which was not typical A notable event was a “maker” event held at Harvard University’s Arnold Arboretum led by Yanni Loukissas and Laura Forlano. This two-day event sought on the one hand to introduce the skills and methods of design and making to digitalSTS participants in order to broader our repertoire of communication and the skillset to produce artifacts inspired by STS tenets. But it also sought to explore STS’s specific contributions to design and to more strongly theorize what might set STS making apart from other forms of DIY or digital intellectual projects. Thereafter, including makers, programmers, designers and their products became a central part of the digitalSTS project. tie this all together now: what did all of these different kinds of meetings do together? e.g. The meetings and events were organized to support atypical modes of engagement that foster out-of-the-box thinking about the relationship between the digital and STS, both showcasing the diverse skillsets of the digitalSTS community and engendering new conduits for conversation. At the time of these meetings, many junior scholars trained in the field were already studying and building digital systems but were uncomfortable presenting their findings at 4S or in science studies journals. Thus STS-trained scholars were flocking to the Association of Computing Machinery's conference on Human-Computer Interaction or at the International Communication Association, where paper references quickly filled with pointers to Latour, Pinch and Bijker, Star and Haraway. This cross-talk between STS and constitutive fields should provide exciting opportunities for new ideas, but the conversation was principally unidirectional. The digitalSTS community meetings became a way to bring those discussions "back home" to STS. We aimed to bring perspectives and field sites into conversation with classic theories instead of simply applying an old example to a new site in a new field. We attempted to find and elaborate new theory-objects to join the pantheon of "the speedbump", "the bicycle" and "the cyborg" as we taught a generation of undergraduates glued to their screens and cell phones. Most importantly, theremove 'y', add "meetings" to be clear you don't mean the theory-objects provided opportunities for junior theorists to work together, to find kindred colleagues within STS, and to reinvigorate the conversation "at home." Thus the digitalSTS workshops developed an in-house space within STS for scholars that found themselves placing their work in other venues, and thus in the languages of those venues, in an effort to find the conceptual vocabulary and themes – or what Lynch (1993) calls “epistopics” – for and within STS. The broad community participation sets this volume apart from others. Further unlike traditional edited volumes, the shape and scope of the topic has been defined by the self-selected community, with the editorial board serving as organizers along the way. For example, at the first digitalSTS workshop in Copenhagen, the organizers facilitated extended brainstorming sessions among over forty participants in plenary and in break out groups to elaborate topics of concern for digital scholarship in STS. The categories that ultimately comprised the volume's scope – “theory and cases”, “methods”, and “making” - arose from those conversations in Copenhagen, including the framings of “Handbook,” “Fieldguide,” and “Scrapbook.” Realizing that STS needed to theorize more stringently how "making" intersected with our existing theories, we convened the Harvard workshop to address the theme head on -- and hands-on. A follow up workshop at the San Diego 4S meeting convened groups around each theme to elaborate the Call for Papers and Call for Things, with thorough attention to subsidiary topics and themes. The result is a pluralist view of digital studies in STS shaped by the polyvocal concerns of its community, broadly conceived. This bottom-up approach itself was also suggested at the first meeting in Copenhagen, when community members endorsed trying to build a handbook in a way consistent with the values and practices of the very online communities that we studied. Deploying practices from collaborative peer production and online communities, we embraced the concept of open scholarship and digital publishing from the outset. We developed a platform to reflect these goals, a review system that enabled submission and open review by community members themselves. Two rounds of online open peer review provided a virtual space for conversations and collaboration among community members hosted on a platform acquired from a cross-over community of HCI scholars. We used email lists and open invitations to our review platform to try to engage the most inclusive community possible, continuing to broaden our membership and participation. Following these two rounds of online peer review, a workshop at 4S in Denver two years later served as a face-to-face round of review for draft papers, where participants again revisited the volume's shape and scope. Hence it is conversations among community members that actively shaped the volume from the outset, with topics not imposed from above but emerging from among many active and interactive discussions. It is our hope that this will ensure a volume with the broadest possible scope and reach across STS and its constitutive disciplines. II. “The digital” in STS Turning to digital systems in the field neither requires nor excludes embracing the rhetoric of novelty, revolution, and innovation. But examining digital systems certainly exacerbates tensions within STS about studying "new" technologies, especially those surrounded with such powerful political and economic rhetoric about disruption and transformative properties. As two scholars with doctorates in science studies who have studied information systems in action for over a decade, we confronted many questions from scholars in the field about what we meant by “the digital,” and whether or not there was anything “new” to study in these sites. Yet this tension also proved evocative throughout the process which led to this volume. Far from abandoning our commitments, we argue that paying explicit attention to digital sites, environments, and methods requires returning to and renovating “classic” scholarship - social construction and technological shaping, actor-networks, infrastructures, hybridities, etc. But it also presents an opportunity to push the agenda of the field. We do not offer here a definition of “the digital.” From our experiences in the first digitalSTS workshop we found that any discussion that veered in this direction became fractious, abstracting away from the on-the-ground scholarship of participants. An early, and cheeky stance we took to this term was, "The first rule of digitalSTS: is don't ask ‘what is the digital.’” As the organizers of digitalSTS events we took an avowedly agnostic stance towards bounding the term: the meanings, histories, objects of study, methods and relevant concepts would be determined by the participants who self-selected to come to join events. The digital for STS was emergent in the very process of digitalSTS. As such it came to have diverse but overlapping “in house” meanings for our community, the principal elements of which we summarize here. Intercalation of the Digital: Scholars in STS studies of digital environments remain committed to classic orienting literature in the field and critical epistopics for STS analysis. The contributions in this volume return to these studies and renovate them for the present moment. These include topics of concern like classification and standardization, immutable mobility, hybridity, the circulation of particulars and the generation of universals, and the role of instrumentation. These, and more, have been active themes throughout our conversations from which we drew inspiration and aimed to adapt to the emerging objects of digital life. However, the group also remained committed to the investigation of the ongoing intercalation of the digital into everyday practice in many spheres of life. Rather than treating information technology and its innumerable cousins as distinct matters of concern (the problem of “digital dualism” as it is called in media studies), the studies in this volume bring information technologies into view embedded in contexts of use, of practice, of development, and of knowledge making. The reflexive adoption of digital approaches to investigation: In as much as the theoretical tools and field orientations persist, we also developed an attunement to changing methods for all STS parties. This is not to say that we push for a whole-hearted embrace of digital methods and research tools; STS’s epistemological sensitivity, or topicalization, demands a reflexive approach to any novel tools of computational, network, or visualization methodologies in knowledge making endeavors, including our own. The volume as “Fieldguide” therefore showcases explorations of several methodological approaches to these computational tools that embrace reflexivity, partial perspective, and situated knowledge production even in the context of practice. The makerly, designerly or engaged qualities of much contemporary research: Finally, while STS has always been associated with forms of activist engagement through policy or studies of lay expertise, the rise of the “maker” sensibility associated with digital and computational tools offers an expanded capacity for STS scholars to “act” in the world. The volume as “Scrapbook” therefore presents examples of artifacts – whether objects or software tools - designed with the intention to “make durable” STS conceptions through making, while at the same time remaining reflexive as to the stance of interventionist, collaborative, and contributory scholarship through these very tools. Teaching materials Our embrace of digital topics is as much focused on scholarship as on pedagogy. This became especially clear to us as we began to teach introductory classes in STS to students across the social sciences, humanities, sciences and engineering. We shared stories of peppering our syllabi with the 'classic' critiques of naive of understandings of technology using exemplary STS objects of investigation to unseat our students’ technological determinism. For example, in one of David Ribes’ classes, the bridges of Long Island were used to exemplify the “politics and agencies” of technology to reproduce class and racial formations (Winner 1986); the "locked in" QWERTY keyboard served to critique a view of inevitably efficient technology (David 1985); the "socially shaped" bicycle broke any conception of linear or autonomous progression of technology (Pinch and Bijker 1987); and the "sleeping policeman" qua speedbump (Latour 1992) contested a view of technology as consequential if only large-scale by showcasing an example of everyday, pervasive, infrastructural and mundane qualities. These exemplary objects are particularly valuable for the strength with which they convey STS formulations, offering easily comprehensible cases for surfacing, rethinking and problematizing the still sticky and pervasive assumptions about technology, change, and its relationship to society. As one of Janet Vertesi's students put it, his exposure to STS concepts in her class was all the more thought-provoking for him because "I never thought of the bicycle or the car as technology." We should continue to embrace these exemplary objects to think with because they remind students that technology does not begin or end with digital artifacts. But these examples are also distinctly not of the moment. In a class dedicated to examining technology, there was a substantive gap between these classic studies and the technologies in front of student’s faces and in the forefront of their minds: their smart phones ready-to-hand, the social media sites they posted to, the open encyclopedia that confirmed or contested the statements of the professor, or the bracelets that tracked how long they had been sitting in class. While certainly STS by 2011 had begun to approach these objects, few contenders for easily grasped exemplary objects had emerged at that time. We sought a series of fresh teachable objects which could be immediately relatable both to new and long-standing members of the field to renovate classic STS critiques and novel theoretical turns. One part of the project in this volume, then, is to contribute such pedagogical devices to the contemporary repertoire of STS. In doing so we do not aim to displace the bicycle or the keyboard (still relevant today!) but rather to complement our pantheon of compelling and pithy “objects to think with” (Turkle 2007). Methods An additional aspect that emerged repeatedly was the relationship between digitalSTS and other "digital" movements such as the digital humanities, digital anthropology, and digital sociology. In beginning our plans to assemble a digitalSTS volume, it was perhaps the digital humanities which inspired us most. Volumes such as Debates in the Digital Humanities (Gold 2012) developed by their communities, and successfully published online, some as open access, offering models for our own venture. This volume remains indebted to DH for its willingness to experiment with method and outside traditional publication pathways. Inasmuch as defining “the digital” comes not only to define digital objects but also subjects, especially those who investigate such topics, our aim was to keep our community open across STS. We therefore found ourselves disenchanted with the factionalization and boundary-making we saw within other professional scholarly domains. Instead of demarcating a distinct area of STS as "digital" and crafting a politics of difference around that community, we opted instead for open definitions and open community engagement to encourage a more flexible ontology and to examine its shifting boundaries and networked participants. Our goal is to deliver to the field at large a series of theoretical and practical tools to investigate digital contextures wherever we may find them, in a way consistent with the values, sensibilities and intellectual orientation of STS. While we learned much from intersecting with these disciplines in terms of potential methods and subject matter, the stance that we developed within digitalSTS is emphatically different than in those domains. In particular, we have resisted any ontologically or epistemologically naive stance towards "the digital." Our engagements with adopting digital objects of study or methods of inquiry have never been headlong, but always historical, considered, and sometimes resistant. Revolutionizing the field through the digital has never been our rhetoric, we have always approached it with temerity while not allowing that sentiment to halt us. After all, STS has long entangled technology, instrumentation and practice with epistemology and knowledge construction as a central theme. Thus we do not embrace digital methods of knowledge production as either revolutionary or objective, but rather engage these methods with a hearty degree of skepticism and reflexivity, including a critical perspective on knowledge construction even during the very use of these tools. ' III. Structure of the Volume ' This volume presents papers and contributions that were solicited and edited under three sections, based on the discussions at the digitalSTS workshops. Without a doubt, these sections overlap and intertwine in many ways, and many chapters cut across the themes, as evidenced through cross-referencing throughout the volume. This includes papers focusing on theoretical work developed through case studies of digital or digitally-inflected sites, in the classic style of STS work (a.k.a. the “Handbook”); papers focusing on methodological challenges and opportunities (“the fieldguide”); and papers focused on making (“the scrapbook.”) We describe the main thrust of each type of contribution below, bearing in mind that these taxonomies did not circumscribe the world or our work in it, but rather served as thinking points to jumpstart cross-cutting conversation. We also describe the critical questions shaped by the community that served to anchor our work as articulated at the San Diego workshop, not because such questions are resolved herein but rather to direct future studies in the digital domain. 1. Theories and Cases (a.k.a. “the Handbook”): Papers in the “Theory and Cases” section explore or propose significant or novel contributions to STS theory through new empirical engagements with digital environments, objects, or practices. Through these studies we aim to not only build a corpus of theory around the digital within STS, but also to contribute to larger theoretical and methodological debates within the field (for example: social construction, actor-networks, ontologies, expertise, feminist STS, policy, etc.). We also emphasize how these novel theoretical framings engage with past contributions, current investigations, and emerging research trajectories, such as studies of cyberinfrastructures (c.f. Bowker and Star 1999; Bowker 2007) or knowledge infrastructures (i.e. Edwards 2013; Borgman et al. 2014). In its broadest form, work of this type addresses two questions: How can STS help us think, act, and engage differently around ‘the digital’? And how can engagement with the digital help in turn to change the way we imagine, theorize, and practice STS? Edited by Janet Vertesi and Steve Jackson, papers in this section explore many questions and domains. For instance, they inquire into materiality and ontology, inquiring hawthorne/cah: "inquir/ing" is used twice in this sentence, perhaps replace with a different word: What type of material is the digital or in what ways is it material? What difference does (digital) materiality make? How are digital objects constituted? And what do digital materials do? They also examine power, politics, and participation in digital spheres, undermining common claims to digital universality. Such papers ask: What influences the uneven circulation of knowledge, artifacts and people? How are users, and designers, and digital laborers, and enthusiast communities configured together through digital systems? How do digital forms and infrastructures reveal, extend, or reconfigure power relations (including those built around gender, class, ethnicity, race, age, location, or other emerging linesclose parentheses? How should we study and think about platforms, algorithms, networks, and other sites at and through which politics and publics are configured? As digital systems produce novel forms of organization and labor -- crowdsourcing, contract work, DIY communities, Amazon Mechanical Turk, etc. – we inquire into the values, experiences, and ideologies of work (e.g. start-up culture) that are embedded in these systems. How are the boundaries and experiences of work being reconstituted? What is the status of digital work, workarounds in practice, and the artful interworking between formal infrastructures and informal interaction? Finally, how are hierarchies of value and reward in digital labor established (e.g. design vs. repair, head work vs. hand work), and how do they get challenged and contested? 2. Methods and Methodologies (a.k.a. “the Fieldguide”) Contemporary studies of science, technology, and the digital span a wide range of socioeconomic, political and material contexts. With this diversity comes a variety of methodological approaches, from temporary design interventions to long-term online field research. In some cases, the very nature of these settings and their organization invites researchers to integrate existing methods in new ways or develop new approaches altogether. Further, digital inquiries inspire STS scholars to revisit their tools and objects of analysis, especially in the light of new work in textual analysis or the digital humanities. How might we characterize these novel methods? What do digital approaches bring to more established forms of inquiry? by "digital approaches" do we mean methods for studying "the digital," methods that deploy digital tools of data collection/analysis, or both? it could be helpful to address this more explicitly What kinds of methodological work cut across varying digital domains? And what is the STS approach to such tools? Papers of this variety, edited by David Ribes and Daniela Rosner, address methods and methodologies for studies of the digital, broadly construed, and novel approaches that draw on the enabling capacities of digital methods for investigations of STS topics. They reflect many styles and approaches from demonstrations of particular methods through exemplary studies, reflexive responses to familiar methodologies, or accounts of hands-on practical approaches. For instance, such papers ask, How are field sites and archives constituted in the age of distributed practice, online interaction, proliferating non-humans, and multimedia communication, and how should we investigate them? Should we rethink past field sites such as labs that may have always been more “virtual” than previously thought? And how do we combine the methods that have become central to STS with emerging approaches, such as network analyses, design and making? These papers also reconsider how we participate and intervene on our objects of study within the context of digital tools and sites, which methods or developing lines of inquiry STS should consider “dangerous” or epistemologically or ethically suspect, and how STS’ers should confront the challenges of data curation alongside the critical issues of privacy and documentation to sustain meaning in new contexts. '' 3. Making: A Call for Things (a.k.a. “the Scrapbook”) '' The STS scholars who participated in our workshops very clearly stated an important future for design, making, and hacking in the future of the field. The “scrapbook” contributions to the volume, curated by Laura Forlano, Yanni Loukissas, Carl DiSalvo, and Hanna Rose Shell, showcases the work of scholars, designers and makers as well as hybrid identities such as scholar/makers, scholarly artists and film-makers. The section brings together texts as well as visual materials such as diagrams, images, prototypes, or videos that use hands-on methods to engage with core STS themes, such as the entanglement of materiality, identity and knowledge. The contributions articulate a role for design and making in STS —how visual materials and hands-on methods might be incorporated — as well as with STS—through collaborative work between scholars and makers. Deploying the full range of possibilities included in digital publishing at time of publication, these contributions include objects, artifacts, diagrams, maps, pictures, images, prototypes, and videos (along with the evaluation guidelines and/or criteria for assessing the work). They may include tools or techniques for encouraging design among STS scholars as part of research practice. They include texts about STS intersections with design/designers and with making/makers, about hybrid identities and collaborative ventures, as well as consideration about digital object evaluation or peer review. Elements of this section also include examples, criteria and guidelines for evaluating or validating prototypes, useful examples of platforms for critique and peer review, and examples of multimodal objects that advance both theory and method within STS. ' IV. Whither digitalSTS? ' If the 1990's was dominated by the "science wars" that threatened the survival of the field, the 2010's demands a different focus with no less at stake. Abandoning digital topics and tools to other fields risks losing the rich literature and perspectives central to STS which are so desperately needed at this turning point in scholarship. As publishing moves online, eScience initiatives come to maturity, and social media tools constructed at a "center of calculation" like Silicon Valley occupy private and public spaces, we cannot turn a blind eye. It is precisely because of the revolutionary rhetoric surrounding IT that STS scholars with their critical perspective must to be present at the front lines to conduct the archaeology of these tools and untangle their many sociotechnical connections, their histories, and networked nodes. As such we continue a long tradition of contributing STS concepts and work beyond the field. In an article appearing in the fourth edition of the STS Handbook, several editors of this volume revisited a decades long tradition of STS scholars engaging through making, design or collaboration with information systems developers and found that many leading figures in STS also became leaders within those communities (Vertesi et al, forthcoming). For example, Geof Bowker, Leigh Star, Lucy Suchman, or Marc Berg are equally recognized as contributors in STS as they are in information systems, human-computer interaction or computer-supported cooperative work. As graduate students many of us travelled on the rails they built into those communities; today we find ourselves with one foot in STS and the other in information technology fields. We found ourselves intellectually inspired by what we had learned through those collaborations with (or being!) programmers, designers and developers. And yet, we asked, why do find it difficult to bring back to STS those insights we had gleaned in other fields? Moreover, could our colleagues, trained in information, collaboration, interface development and computation but now influenced and inspired by the work of itinerant STS scholars, also travel back with us to the spaces of STS, its journals and its conferences, its theory and its discourse? Rather than simply exporting the voices of STS to other fields (as our forebearers had done), the digitalSTS project endeavored to bring back what we had learned in "speaking STS" to human-computer interaction, CSCW, the information schools. But digitalSTS also sought to open a space for those trained in those domains with an affinity, interest or contributions that could be valuable to STS. This volume includes as many people who first identified with STS, as those who came to identify with STS through the events and engagements of digitalSTS. In our final workshop, held in advance of the 2015 4S meeting in Denver, CO, one contributor to this volume, Matt Ratto, noted that perhaps the term 'digital' "marked time" for this project. Perhaps “digital” captures the sensibility of emerging scholarship between 2011 and 2016 rather than its future. Ultimately the digital may fall away and we will simply be “doing STS.” If so, the volume will have served its purpose as a rallying call to push STS forward, to seize the public conversation surrounding “the digital revolution”, to engage with policy and design practice, and to knit together a robust, thoughtful community of scholars dedicated to the core principles and the continued future of science and technology studies in the world. ' Works Cited' Borgman, Christine L., Peter T. Darch, Ashley E. Sands, Jillian C. Wallis, and Sharon Traweek. 2014. “The Ups and Downs of Knowledge Infrastructures in Science: Implications for Data Management.” 257–66. IEEE. doi:10.1109/JCDL.2014.6970177. Bowker, Geoffrey C. 2008. Memory Practices in the Sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. Bowker, Geof, and Susan Leigh Star. 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press. David, Paul A. 1985. “Clio and the Economics of QWERTY.” The American Economic Review 75 (2): 332–37. Edwards, Paul N. 2013. A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press. Gold, Matthew K., ed. 2012. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Latour, Bruno. 1992. “Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts.” In Shaping Technology/Building Society, edited by Wiebe E Bijker and John Law, 225–58. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Pinch, Trevor, and Wiebe E Bijker. 1987. “The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technnology Might Benefit Each Other.” In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociaology and History of Technology, edited by Trevor Pinch, Wiebe E Bijker, and Thomas P Hughes. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Turkle, Sherry, ed. 2007. Evocative Objects. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/evocative-objects. Vertesi, Janet, David Ribes, Laura Forlano, Yanni A. Loukissas, and Marisa Cohn. forthcoming. “Engaging, Making, and Designing Digital Systems.” In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 4th Edition, pages TBA. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press. Winner, Langdon. 1986. “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” In The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology, 19–39. Chicago: Chicago University Press.